Lindsay Clancy May Never Get Retried

WASHINGTON - Sept. 6, 2026 - PRLog -- Although there are many people urging if not clamoring for a retrial now that a mistrial has been declared, the odds of persuading all 12 new jurors to vote to hold Lindsay Clancy legally responsible - at least based upon the generally accepted assumption about the jury's 11-1 split against conviction - are vanishingly small, says public interest law professor and renounced mathematician John Banzhaf.

Prof Banzhaf, who invented the widely used mathematical "Banzhaf Index," has calculated that the odds of obtaining a criminal conviction are far worse than drawing to an inside straight in draw poker many times in a row.  He explains it with this simple example.

Since it appears that only 1 out of 12 jurors was willing to hold Clancy legally responsible, the odds that any 1 juror would vote to convict is about 1 in 12 [~8.34%].

This is very similar to the odds that any card in a well-shuffled deck of 52 cards would be a Jack.

So the odds that any card drawn from such a deck would be a Jack are 1-13 [~7.69%]; very close to the 1-12  [~8.34%] odds that any individual juror would vote for a conviction.

But the obvious question is what are the odds of drawing 12 jacks in a row from a dealing shoe of the type used in casinos for dealing blackjack, which contain many well shuffled decks of cards.

The answer is (1/13) X (1/13) X (1/13) X (1/13)  . . 12 different times (1 for each juror); which is an unimaginably tiny number of about 4 times 10 to the minus 14th power.

Similarly, the odds that all 12 jurors in a new jury would vote to convict is (1/12) X (1/12) X (1/12) X (1/12)  . . twelve different times; which is about 1.1 times 10 to the minus 13th power.

In stark and dramatic contrast, the odds in five-card draw poker - the origin of the classic advice "never draw to an inside straight" - of drawing to an inside straight are about 8.5%.

So, since ethical rules provide that prosecutors should not bring a criminal case unless they have a reasonable belief that they can obtain a conviction, and most prosecutors are reluctant to pursue cases where the odds of losing are high, mathematics alone - based upon the generally accepted assumption about the jury's 11-1 split against conviction and no major changes - suggest that there may not be a retrial, says Banzhaf.

The professor has also suggested Reasons NOT to Retry Lindsay Clancy * * *  Retry Lindsay Clancy? Factors Typically Considered re: Decision to Retry (https://www.prlog.org/13168777-reasons-not-to-retry-linds...)

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf